“The main mistake Yanukovich made is that he allowed the situation to become critical.”

Stanislav Belkovsky – Russian political scientist
Translated by Elena Kartyshova
Source: http://interfax.com.ua/news/opinion/187111.html?fb_action_ids=807043219311698&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B617169991651929%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map 

Stanislav Belkovsky, founder and director of the National Strategy Institute, a Moscow-based NGO and thinktank

Yanukovitch reached something absolutely unique. He broke all the barriers of moderation the people of Ukraine had – by Stanislav Belkovskiy.

The political scientist also states that Russia can hardly count on the return of the loans given to Kiev.

Project “Opinions” has several interesting statements made by a Russian political scientist, Stanislav Belkovskiy, who actively consults with Ukrainian politicians as well as is an opponent of Victor Medvedchuk, when the latter was a head of Leonid Kuchma’s presidential administration. Mr. Belkovskiy made these statements during the program, “Special Opinion” broadcast by the “Echo of Moscow” radio station on January 22, 2014.

“This is the first time that a radical protest containing elements of oppression has occurred in modern Ukraine. In 2004 there were no victims at Maidan; there was not even a single car tampered with… The reason for that was because Ukraine is not Russia as Leonid Kuchma, the former president of this country mentioned correctly (by “this country” I mean Ukraine, not Russia). And to think that Victor Yanukovych bet on the fact that he can oppress the people of Ukraine for an indefinite period of time… From one side, this is definitely a reflection of his criminal way of thinking as there is no question that he is a product of a post-Soviet environment being a person who served two sentences in jail. From another side, however, everybody wants to take lessons from Comrade Stalin. Every one of the post-Soviet politicians. But not everybody can be successful at it,” – Mr. Belkovskiy stated.

“Victor Yanukovich overestimated the level of patience the people of Ukraine had. I agree that the people of Ukraine and the people of Russia are very close ethnically, genetically and culturally… However, Ukrainian people as opposed to Russian people are not afraid of anything, – Mr. Belkovskiy is sure of that. – And it is a fact which Mr. Yanukovich completely failed to take into consideration. It was definitely a mistake in the program which he put into motion when he became president in 2010.”

“He (Yanukovich – “Opinions”) continued to test (the patience of the people of Ukraine – “Opinions”) and thought he could continue doing so forever. But, suddenly, it turned out he cannot. The situation today is very similar to an old Jewish joke: a telegram comes from Odessa to Kharkov stating “Izya, this is it.” The response that came from Kharkov to Odessa was “Ouch.” Something similar is now happening to Victor Yanukovich,” – Mr. Belkovskiy is sure of that.

When asked if whether he thinks that “it is possible that in the nearest future one can say “Yanukovich is it?”, Mr. Belkovskiy stated: “One can already say it today. Citing the words of Durrenmatt’s character “do not plan anything for tomorrow as an executioner I sent for you will be here today.” In general, Victor Yanukovich could have been a perfect head of a project where any kind of time-dragging is involved as time-dragging is his absolute talent. But he changed his environment, do you understand? His environment is morass, swamp. There are politicians who are great in critical situations or during any kind of crisis when they make the only correct decisions possible and defeat everybody because of their courage and ability to make these decisions work in reality. Typical examples of such politicians are Boris Yeltsin and Yuliya Timoshenko. Yanukovich is a completely opposite type of a politician. He can act only in a situation of total stability and quietness.”

Stanislav Belkovskiy also voiced his opinion regarding the reasons why the conflict in question became radical: “Yesterday Yanukovich was not ready to negotiate even with Klitschko alone. And today (on January 22, 2014, the date of this interview), when blood was spilled on Hrushevskoho Street for the first time, he did not go to the end, right? He did not order tanks to enter the streets of Kiev and to kill hundreds of people as he was probably expected to do by many. Instead today he met with the three leaders of the opposition. What is this if not the demonstration of his fear?

His main mistake is that he allowed the situation to become critical.

… Yanukovich provoked the use of force as he became absolutely intolerant. He was partially provoked by the opposition, more so not by its actions, but the lack of them. When it became clear at Maidan yet again that the opposition did not have a real plan as to how to take charge in the nearest future, the radical part of the protesters said “Well then, it is impossible to drag this any longer. Now we are going to move forward and smack everybody in the face – then we will see who is worth what.”

Mr. Belkovskiy named Victor Medvedchuk as one of the critical figures in communication between Ukraine and Russia: “Medvedchuk is still the most important advisor to Putin when it comes to Ukraine. And I can explain it, because having been working for many years in the area of so-called political science, which does not exist, I got myself into a niche of political psychology, which does. That’s when I realized that nothing brings people closer than psychological alikeness… They have very similar personalities. They are both suffering from paranoia, i.e. they see somebody plotting something everywhere, all the time. In their opinion a cup cannot simply fall down by itself – oh, no. The cup has fallen? Has it just happened? – Oh, no, surely it is US Embassy that sent some kind of rays of hate at it and it fell, right?”

Stanislav Belkovskiy is certain that Yanukovich himself should be blamed for making the situation critical: “You see, Victor Yanukovich reached something absolutely unique. He broke all the barriers of moderation the people of Ukraine had. He constantly kept probing how far he could push Ukrainian people, how badly he can humiliate them.

Yanukovich and Medvedchuk were the ones who talked Putin into giving big money to Ukraine right here and right now (the biggest fear of Yanukovich is to lose the money, and nothing else – he does not even know how to spell “geopolitics”)…

…All the money was wasted as they caused an active part of Ukrainian society to move further away from Russia. That money clearly worsened the position of Russia “in the eyes” of Ukraine.

Yanukovich snatched some money and felt good. But Ukraine asked him “Do we feel good now too?” He was asked this question not only by the people of Western and Central Ukraine that cannot stand him anyway; he was asked this question by the people of Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Yanukovich’s rating in Donetsk decreased 3 times, from 80% in 2009 to less than 30% today, because everybody understands that these milliards of Russian money, which Yanukovich and prime minister Azarov advertise, will end in the pockets of the members of Yanukovich’s family instead of being spent on improvement of the lives of people who voted for him only yesterday, who had the ever so slightest hopes of a better life, which miserably failed. This is why I say that Yanukovich broke all the barriers… This is exactly what he did playing ironically against himself, sticking a poisoned dagger in his own heart.”

Mr. Belkovskiy voiced a quite direct opinion as to what might happen next: “The ideal solution – Yanukovich’s escape… By the way, yesterday (January 21) Alexander Lukashenko humiliated Yanukovich publicly, did you see that? Knowing about Lukashenko’s great intuition and how well he understands what’s going on around him, he would have never done so if he had not thought Yanukovich is finished as a politician. The opinion of Alexander Lukashenko-the political scientist should be listened to more than mine.”

“What’s next is a parliamentary republic with Vitali Klitschko as a president. There is one thing that is good about Klitschko – he is not a manager of economics, not at all; he is certainly not some genius politician. But, according to Mr. Belkovskiy, he is above separation of the Western and the Eastern Ukraine. – As the people of Ukraine are pretty provincial just as the people of Russia are, to be successful in the eyes of the West is definitely very symbolic (and Klitschko surely is a symbol of Ukrainian success in the West). That is why Klitschko will be able to be successful as a ceremonial president who will make sure that Ukraine finalizes its transition from a post-Soviet state with total corruption to some type of a pro-European state which, of course, will have to face plenty of problems but which, nevertheless, will be moving forward in a definite direction. Klitschko is not an authoritarian leader at all. He is, as one Turgenev’s characters said, a rich liberal softy, regardless of his oh-so-brutal image.”

Speaking about the fate of Russian loans which Victor Yanukovich received in December after his visit to Moscow, Mr. Belkovskiy says the following: “Enough, enough. Let’s say “farewell” to them. …That’s it. Sad times of saying good-bye.”

When making his prognosis as to possible scenarios, Mr. Belkovskiy states following: “I do not know what one can expect in the nearest future. I know what one can expect in the medium run. In the medium run, Victor Yanukovich will survive until the end of his first term, at best, as a compromise. At worst, he will have to escape a lot earlier than that. At worst, there will be early elections during which Klitschko will win.”

Speaking of relations between Ukraine and Russia, the Russian political scientist stated the following: “Russia had the only correct concept of interaction with Ukraine after their mutually agreed separation in 1991: Russia should have been leading the movement of post-Soviet countries, Ukraine foremost, towards Europe. If Russia had signed an agreement about association with the EU before Ukraine did, Ukraine then would have stayed in the orbit of Russia’s political influence. The rest is worsening of provincialism and none of the post-Soviet countries is interested in that. However, that is what Putin & Co. is currently working for – provincialism, stuffiness and Asia-likeness.”